On first blush, the lesson from Tuesday’s American presidential election seems to be that extremism doesn’t work.

To many outside the U.S., particularly in Canada, the Republican Party of today is too white, too socially conservative and — at base — too insane.

Those preaching moderation (and that includes some old-style Republicans) will argue that the day of the Tea Party is over and that Republicans, if they are ever to win the presidency, must move to the centre.

And maybe that’s true. Certainly, it is a formula that has worked for Canadian Conservatives who, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have carefully tried to distance themselves from hot-button issues like abortion.

The electoral loss Tuesday by some high-profile Tea Party Republicans adds weight to the theory that extreme partisanship has run its course.

Florida’s Allen West, who famously called Democrats “traitorous Communists,” seems poised to lose his Congressional seat. Senate hopeful and fellow Tea Partier Todd Akin was punished by Missouri voters for his curious views about the ability of the female body to avoid pregnancy after rape.

Even Michele Bachmann, a high priestess of the ultra-right, had trouble holding onto her Minnesota seat.

And yet . . . .

And yet overall, the political complexion of both the House of Representatives and the Senate remains much as it was.

Democrats still control the Senate. Republicans, under the leadership of ultra-partisans and Tea Party aficionados, still control the House.

Paul Ryan, one of the right’s favourite extremists, may have lost the vice-presidency. But he retained his seat in the House and is well-positioned to be the focus of any new Republican attempt to make Barack Obama’s second term miserable.

As for Obama, he didn’t win by increasing his appeal to moderates. Exit polls indicate that his vote share from those who identified themselves as moderates fell from 2008 levels.

Meanwhile, the Republicans under Mitt Romney did slightly better with this group than they had four years earlier.

Nor, in the end, did Obama win by drawing in so-called independents. Independents favoured Obama in 2008. But in this contest, the majority went to Romney.

This time, unlike 2008, Obama didn’t win by appealing to America’s better angels. He won by being partisan — by drawing clear distinctions between himself and Romney, by belittling his opponent (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) and particularly by getting out the Democratic vote.

In short, Democrats and Republicans played similar games. The Democrats just played theirs better.

So what lessons will be drawn from this campaign? Republicans will draw at least one — that they must appeal more to Latinos, the country’s fastest-growing demographic group.

They had made gains in this direction under George W. Bush. They lost ground under Romney.

On the more fundamental question of embracing moderation, I’m far less sure. Female voters have long favoured Democrats, in large part because of the Republican Party’s antediluvian views about women. But that gender gap didn’t stop Bush, for instance, from winning in 2004.

Overall, Republicans had, in Romney, the most moderate candidate they could find. In the final weeks of the campaign, the exit polls suggest, he drew in undecided voters. Yet he still lost.

To dyed-in-the-wool Tea Party members, that means Republicans picked the wrong candidate. Some are already vowing that next time they’ll find someone even more conservative.

Is that nuts? Perhaps. But it’s the same calculation Ontario Conservatives made after their party under moderate John Tory lost the 2007 election.

So don’t assume that U.S. Republicans will become more accommodating as America’s newly re-elected president tries to steer a delicate course through the shoals of the world economy. They may decide, again, to do the opposite — for reasons that aren’t entirely irrational.

Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.